Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mukesh S/O Ramswaroop vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 January, 2021
Author: Satish Kumar Sharma
Bench: Satish Kumar Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6238/2020
1. Mukesh S/o Ramswaroop, R/o Meena Ki Nangal, Patan,
Distt. Sikar, Raj.
2. Karansingh S/o Sahiram, R/o Meena Ki Nangal, Patan,
Distt. Sikar, Raj.
3. Mahesh S/o Khemchand, R/o Meena Ki Nangal, Patan,
Distt. Sikar, Raj.
4. Kailash S/o Khemchand, R/o Meena Ki Nangal, Patan,
Distt. Sikar, Raj.
5. Rakesh S/o Gyanchand, R/o Meena Ki Nangal, Patan,
Distt. Sikar, Raj.
6. Kabarsingh S/o Shreeram, R/o Meena Ki Nangal, Patan,
Distt. Sikar, Raj.
7. Pramod S/o Jagdish, R/o Meena Ki Nangal, Patan, Distt.
Sikar, Raj.
8. Priyanka W/o Ramsingh, R/o Meena Ki Nangal, Patan,
Distt. Sikar, Raj.
9. Pooja W/o Hanshraj, R/o Meena Ki Nangal, Patan, Distt.
Sikar, Raj.
10. Raju S/o Mansingh, R/o Meena Ki Nangal, Patan, Distt.
Sikar, Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2. Lalchand Yadav S/o Rameshwar, Aged About 46 Years,
R/o Meena Ki Nangal, Patan, Distt. Sikar, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Mahesh Sharma, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR SHARMA Order 29/01/2021
1. This Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.423/2019 registered at Police Station Patan District Sikar for offences under Sections 323, 341, 143, 327 and 382 IPC.
(Downloaded on 29/01/2021 at 10:34:29 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-6238/2020]
2. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material made available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on earlier occasions similar FIRs were registered and in all of them FRs were filed by the Investigating Agency. The present FIR has been lodged by the Mining Mafia due to genuine resentment by the villagers. The present FIR is clear abuse of process. And the same deserves to be quashed. Therefore, further investigation in the matter should be stayed and the petitioners should be granted interim protection from any sort of coercive action.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that appropriate directions may be issued.
5. Since the contents of FIR prima facie constitute cognizable offence, the other alleged grounds for quashing of the impugned FIR as per the legal position as expounded in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal: [1992 (supp)1 SCC 335] can only be disclosed after due investigation. Further, as per P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement: [(2019) 9 SCC 24] the investigation is in the domain of the Investigating Agency and the courts are not supposed to interfere in the investigation. At the same time the accused is entitled to avail due legal remedies available to him for protection of his/ her personal liberty.
6. Therefore, in light of above legal position, it is not appropriate to stay the investigation in the matter, however, having regard to the above submissions but without expressing any opinion on merits, it is directed that the investigation shall continue and the petitioners shall join the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 5-2-2021 and as and when they (Downloaded on 29/01/2021 at 10:34:29 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6238/2020] are called upon to do so. After completion of investigation, the police report (challan/ FR) shall be presented before the concerned court. However, the petitioners shall not be arrested without prior notice of seven days.
7. It is made clear that in case the accused petitioner/s fail to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer shall be free to arrest him/ them forthwith, if so required, subject to bail order, if any.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to call for the status report of the investigation.
9. List the matter on 17-02-2021.
(SATISH KUMAR SHARMA),J Arun/60 (Downloaded on 29/01/2021 at 10:34:29 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)